Chief Justice Kilbride and Justice Freeman concurred in the judgment and
opinion.

Justice Burke specially concurred, with opinion.

Justice Thomas dissented, with opinion, joined by Justices Garman and Karmeier.

In 2007, in Belvidere, a man was shot in the arm, chest and shoulder outside his
nephew's house after a black SUV with tinted windows pulled up and multiple shots
were fired. A Boone County jury convicted this defendant, one of the vehicle's
occupants, of aggravated battery with a firearm and aggravated discharge of a firearm
under an accountability theory. Although there was evidence of disputes surrounding
this event which may have shown the defendant's motivation, the only evidence
implicating him in the drive-by shooting was a statement made to interrogating
detectives, which included remarks that he told his companion in the car to "get them
niggas," by which he explained he meant "blast them." At trial, he recanted these two
remarks, stating "I've never been in a situation like this before ***. I've never been
in prison or nothing like that." Evidence of the defendant's prior juvenile
adjudication for burglary was introduced to impeach this recantation, and this was
complained of on appeal. The appellate court affirmed.

The supreme court held that a juvenile adjudication is typically not admissible
against a testifying defendant. This rule is embodied in the 1971 case of People v.
Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d 510, and its progency. The Juvenile Justice Reform
Provisions of 1998 make a reference to juvenile adjudications, but the supreme court
construed this statute as not reflecting the legislature's intent to alter the Montgomery
rule, but as simply showing the legislature's recognition that circumstances may exist
in which a juvenile adjudication is admissible against a testifying defendant
notwithstanding Montgomery's general prohibition against the admission of such
evidence, such as the already recognized exception which is applicable when a
defendant "opens the door."

In this decision, the supreme court noted that the second remark of the recantation
testimony was true. As to the first, it did not speak to criminal history, but only to the
issue of whether the defendant was experienced with police questioning. This did not
open the door to impeachment with a juvenile adjudication and, therefore, the
admission was erroneous. Because it was not harmless in these circumstances, the
conviction was reversed and the cause was remanded for a new trial.